Rankin v. Rankin

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District · 2021 · Family Law

Family Lawshared parentingmodificationbest interest of the childattorney feesR.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b)R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)R.C. 3109.04(F)(2)

Facts

The parties dissolved their marriage in 2017 and entered a shared parenting plan that expressly contemplated the mother's possible relocation to the Canton/Jackson Township area before the child started kindergarten and stated that the father was expected to relocate there as well if she did. By 2019, both parents lived near each other in the Hilliard school district, but the mother gave written notice that she intended to relocate to the Canton area. The father moved to modify the plan, arguing that his employment circumstances had changed and that the move was no longer in the child's best interest because it would reduce his parenting time. The trial court ultimately kept the relocation-related terms largely intact, while modifying vacation and giving the father additional parenting time if he remained in central Ohio.

Issue

When one parent seeks to modify a shared parenting plan to prevent the other parent's contemplated relocation and change school-placement terms, may the trial court consider the parties' prior agreed plan while still applying the statutory best-interest analysis under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b)? Also, did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the requested modification and in awarding partial attorney fees under R.C. 3105.73(B)?

Rule

Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), a court may modify the terms of a shared parenting plan only if the modification is in the child's best interest; no change-in-circumstances finding is required, and the party seeking modification bears the burden of proof. In deciding best interest, the court considers the nonexclusive factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2), may assess witness credibility and other relevant circumstances, and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In post-decree domestic relations proceedings, the court may award reasonable attorney fees under R.C. 3105.73(B) if equitable, considering income, conduct, and other relevant factors.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Flores and Caleb Moran dissolved their marriage in Ohio and adopted a shared parenting plan giving Nina school-placement authority if she lived in one of several listed school districts. Two years later, after Nina announced plans to move from Columbus to Akron, Caleb moved to delete the relocation and school-placement terms, arguing only that the move would be inconvenient and that he preferred the child remain in Columbus.

How should the court analyze Caleb's motion?

Explanation. Under R.C. 3109.04(E)(2)(b), modification of a shared parenting plan turns on whether the requested modification is in the child's best interest, not on a threshold change-in-circumstances showing. The moving party bears the burden of proof. The court may modify only if Caleb proves deleting those terms is in the child's best interest. (Derived from Rankin v. Rankin (n.d.).)